Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Had you been following the latest psycho literature you
would have come away with the sense that empathy is the supreme moral sentiment.
Having a capacity for empathy makes you a fine, upstanding moral being. Lacking
it makes you a psychopath, a sociopath or a bigot.

While empathy, per se, does not show up on what is called
the Big Five personality test, it is lurking in the shadows.

The test measures what it calls personality traits, among
them: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism and openness.
In the study the researchers wanted to see the correlation between one or
another of these traits and career success.

The
research examined the careers and personalities of more than 4,500 married
people, using a common personality test known as the Big Five. The
test measures people on five different traits: extraversion (how
outgoing and sociable a person is), agreeableness (how honest and
sympathetic someone is, versus suspicious and unfriendly), conscientiousness
(how well someone can plan and be productive, rather than be disorganized
and impulsive), neuroticism (how anxiety-prone someone is) and openness (how
naturally curious and open to change a person is).

Before going any further, let’s note that extraversion (and
its cousin, introversion), agreeableness (and its component quality of empathy),
neuroticism (a nervous and febrile life style) and openness are personality
traits.

Conscientiousness, however, is a character trait. The
ability to make a plan and to implement it is not a personality trait. Surely, other
parts of conscientiousness involve being responsible and reliable.

So far, so good.

When the researchers examined which personality and
character traits translated into greater career success they discovered that:

… those
with higher levels of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness
were more likely to have higher levels of future job satisfaction.
Meanwhile, higher conscientiousness was also tied to better salaries, and
greater extraversion was linked with more promotions on the job.

Nothing about this should come as a surprise. People who are
more outgoing and more sociable, who get along well with others and who
practice those qualities conscientiously, with good manners, are more likely to
do well on the job.

Interestingly, people who are more conscientious are more
likely to make more money while the extraverts are more likely to get more
promotions.

McGregor continues:

On the
negative side, individuals who were particularly agreeable often had lower
income and fewer job promotions. And unsurprisingly, those who scored high on
the neuroticism traits were also less satisfied with their jobs.

No one is surprised that people who are nervous and
suspicious and untrusting are not going to do very well in their careers. And
yet, it is somewhat surprising that people who value agreeableness above all
else, who share feelings freely and openly are less successful at work.

But, this is not the more interesting part of the study.

That lies in the fact that those who succeed in the business
world are more often married to spouses who exhibit one “personality” trait in
particular: conscientiousness.

If a man’s wife is conscientious, he will do better on the
job. It is, the research suggests, the only wifely trait that really matters
for his career success.

If his wife is not conscientious, she might be empathic and
agreeable, to say nothing of extraverted and open and even sexy, but her husband will not do
as well.

Admittedly, the Washington Post story uses the gender
neutral term of spouse. It does make some sense. In a world that is awash in
househusbands and female breadwinners, it seems quaint to talk about husbands
and wives.

And yet, to avoid confusion, I will use the more traditional
terms.

The conclusion, again: a conscientious wife will be an
integral part of her husband’s career success. (Until, that is, she faces a
judge in divorce court and is told that she should not expect very much
alimony. See previous post.)

Why should this be so?

The researchers speculate:

Yet
when it came to the effect of a spouse's personality traits on a person's career, only
high scores on conscientiousness had any impact, whether positive or negative.
Jackson suggests two main reasons for this: One, he says, is that people
often emulate their spouses' behavior, meaning a husband's or wife's
industriousness and organizational skills might rub off on the other.

The
second reason is that when a person's spouse is organized, efficient and
hard working, they're probably tackling the bulk of the
household chores, freeing their husband or wife up to focus more
on his or her job. "You're not as stressed about certain chores or
duties that need to be done while you're at work," Jackson says.

The second reason feels far more cogent than the first. As
for the question of what does or does not rub off on one’s spouse, it is equally
possible that a conscientious individual would choose a conscientious spouse.

Surely, it follows that if a woman has exalted career
ambitions, like Sheryl Sandberg, she would do well either to have a
conscientious househusband or an extensive household staff.

Unfortunately, McGregor wants to promote chore-sharing, so
she misses the second of Jackson’s points. She follows Sandberg blindly when
she says that both members of a couple should be sharing household chores
equally.

In truth, Jackson’s second point suggested a traditional
division of household labor. It is fair to note that if career success depends
on being freed of any worry about the home front, the need to share household
chores bespeaks one’s spouse’s lack of conscientiousness.

Believing that one’s spouse can be counted on to do only half
the chores does not free the working spouse from being distracted by what might
or might not be going on at home.